Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Articles and Reviews

Best Practices for Ethical Conduct of Misinformation Research

A Scoping Review and Critical Commentary

Published Online:December 13, 2022https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000491

Abstract

Abstract: Misinformation can have noxious impacts on cognition, fostering the formation of false beliefs, retroactively distorting memory for events, and influencing reasoning and decision-making even after it has been credibly corrected. Researchers investigating the impacts of real-world misinformation are therefore faced with an ethical issue: they must consider the immediate and long-term consequences of exposing participants to false claims. In this paper, we first present an overview of the ethical risks associated with real-world misinformation. We then report results from a scoping review of ethical practices in misinformation research. We investigated (1) the extent to which researchers report the details of their ethical practices, including issues of informed consent and debriefing, and (2) the specific steps that researchers report taking to protect participants from the consequences of misinformation exposure. We found that fewer than 30% of misinformation papers report any debriefing, and almost no authors assessed the effectiveness of their debriefing procedure. Building on the findings from this review, we evaluate the balance of risk versus reward currently operating in this field and propose a set of guidelines for best practices. Our ultimate goal is to allow researchers the freedom to investigate questions of considerable scientific and societal impact while meeting their ethical obligations to participants.

References

  • American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035006033 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • American Psychological Association. (2017). APA ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Allen, M. (2017). The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Barchard, K. A., & Williams, J. (2008). Practical advice for conducting ethical online experiments and questionnaires for United States psychologists. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1111–1128. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1111 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Brody, J. L., Gluck, J. P., & Aragon, A. S. (2000). Participants’ understanding of the process of psychological research: Debriefing. Ethics & Behavior, 10(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1001_2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cook, J. (2020). Deconstructing climate science denial. In D. HolmesL. M. RichardsonEds., Research handbook on communicating climate change (pp. 62–78). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900408.00014 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dearman, D. T., & Beard, J. E. (2009). Ethical issues in accounting and economics experimental research: Inducing strategic misrepresentation. Ethics & Behavior, 19(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420802623674 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • de Saint Laurent, C., Murphy, G., Hegarty, K., & Greene, C. M. (2022). Measuring the effects of misinformation exposure and beliefs on behavioural intentions: A COVID-19 vaccination study. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7, Article 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00437-y First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ecker, U. K. H., & Antonio, L. M. (2021). Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect. Memory & Cognition, 49(4), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01129-y First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B., & Chang, D. (2011). Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 570–578. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0065-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ecker, U. K. H., O’Reilly, Z., Reid, J. S., & Chang, E. P. (2020). The effectiveness of short-format refutational fact-checks. British Journal of Psychology, 111, 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12383 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Greene, C. M., & Murphy, G. (2020). Individual differences in susceptibility to false memories for COVID-19 fake news. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), Article 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00262-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Greene, C. M., & Murphy, G. (2021). Quantifying the effects of fake news on behaviour: Evidence from a study of COVID-19 misinformation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(4), 773–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000371 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Greenspan, R. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2022). What happens after debriefing? The effectiveness and benefits of postexperimental debriefing. Memory & Cognition, 50(4), 696–709. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01223-9 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hegarty, K., de Saint Laurent, C., Greene, C., & Murphy, G. (2022). Reviewing the existing ethical practices in experimental expositions to misinformation. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D5HRJ First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in science and the science of trust. In B. BlöbaumEd., Trust and communication in a digitized world (pp. 143–159). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2008). Deception in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense. Ethics & Behavior, 18(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420701712990 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kreps, S., Dasgupta, N., Brownstein, J. S., Hswen, Y., & Kriner, D. L. (2021). Public attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination: The role of vaccine attributes, incentives, and misinformation. NPJ Vaccines, 6(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41541-021-00335-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kricorian, K., Civen, R., & Equils, O. (2022). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Misinformation and perceptions of vaccine safety. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 8(1), Article 1950504. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2021.1950504 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E. A., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • LeBel, E. P., Borsboom, D., Giner-Sorolla, R., Hasselman, F., Peters, K. R., Ratliff, K. A., & Smith, C. T. (2013). PsychDisclosure.org: Grassroots support for reforming reporting standards in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 424–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613491437 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lederman, L. C. (1992). Debriefing: Toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., & Lombardi, D. (2020). Debunking handbook 2020. Databrary. http://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1182 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology, 32(2), 348–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 13(5), 585–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Loomba, S., de Figueiredo, A., Piatek, S. J., de Graaf, K., & Larson, H. J. (2021). Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • MacFarlane, D., Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2021). Refuting spurious COVID-19 treatment claims reduces demand and misinformation sharing. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(2), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.12.005 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L. III (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00092-5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McFarland, C., Cheam, A., & Buehler, R. (2007). The perseverance effect in the debriefing paradigm: Replication and extension. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.010 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., McDougall, D., Nosek, B. A., Ram, K., & Soderberg, C. K. (2016). Point of view: How open science helps researchers succeed. elife, 5, Article e16800. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McShane, K. E., Davey, C. J., Rouse, J., Usher, A. M., & Sullivan, S. (2015). Beyond ethical obligation to research dissemination: Conceptualizing debriefing as a form of knowledge transfer. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 56(1), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035473 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Miketta, S., & Friese, M. (2019). Debriefed but still troubled? About the (in)effectiveness of postexperimental debriefings after ego threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 282–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000155 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Miller, F. G., Gluck, J. P. Jr., & Wendler, D. (2008). Debriefing and accountability in deceptive research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 18(3), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.0.0196 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Misra, S. (1992). Is conventional debriefing adequate? An ethical issue in consumer research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20, 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723415 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), Article 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Murayama, T., Wakamiya, S., Aramaki, E., & Kobayashi, R. (2021). Modeling the spread of fake news on Twitter. PLoS One, 16(4), Article e0250419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250419 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Murphy, G., Loftus, E., Grady, R. H., Levine, L. J., & Greene, C. M. (2020). Fool me twice: How effective is debriefing in false memory studies? Memory, 28(7), 938–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1803917 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Kline Struhl, M., & Nuijten, M. B. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 719–748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Otgaar, H., Scoboria, A., & Smeets, T. (2013). Experimentally evoking nonbelieved memories for childhood events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 717–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029668 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ruiz, A., Warchal, J., & You, D. (2020). Teaching ethics to undergraduate psychology students: Review of the evidence and recommendations. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 19(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725720923434 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sanderson, J. A., Bowden, V., Swire-Thompson, B., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2022). Listening to misinformation while driving: Cognitive load and the effectiveness of (repeated) corrections. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000057 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sharpe, D., & Faye, C. (2009). A second look at debriefing practices: Madness in our method? Ethics & Behavior, 19(5), 432–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903035455 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sommers, R., & Miller, F. G. (2013). Forgoing debriefing in deceptive research: Is it ever ethical? Ethics & Behavior, 23(2), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2012.732505 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stewart, L. P. (1992). Ethical issues in postexperimental and postexperiential debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232007 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tay, L. Q., Hurlstone, M. J., Kurz, T., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2022). A comparison of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus explicit misinformation. British Journal of Psychology, 113(3), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12551 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tesch, F. E. (1977). Debriefing research participants: Though this be method there is madness to it. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.217 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wagner, M. C., & Boczkowski, P. J. (2019). The reception of fake news: The interpretations and practices that shape the consumption of perceived misinformation. Digital Journalism, 7(7), 870–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1653208 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2018). Thinking about “information disorder”: formats of misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information. In C. IretonJ. PosettiEds., Journalism, “fake news” & disinformation (pp. 43–54). UNESCO. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zaragoza, M. S., Belli, R. F., & Payment, K. E. (2007). Misinformation effects and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. In M. GarryH. HayneEds., Do justice and let the sky fall: Elizabeth Loftus and her contributions to science, law, and academic freedom (pp. 35–63). Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zarocostas, J. (2020). How to fight an infodemic. Lancet, 395(10225), 676. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar